THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.31393 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of DM&GO in not giving dispatch permits (e-permits) to the petitioner for quarry lease land in Sy.No.7/1A1, 1A2, 1A6 of Puligallu Village, Peddathippasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents, particularly the 3rd respondent to give dispatch permits to the petitioner for the mineral produced from its leased land.” 2. The petitioner was granted a quarry lease over an extent of Ac.1.00 hectare in Sy.Nos. 7/1A1, 1A2 and 1A6 of Puligallu Village, Peddathippasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District, through DMG Proceedings No.17531/Q/2006 dated 17.06.2006 and the consequential work order dated 26.06.2006. The lease was granted for a period of 20 years, from 23.06.2006 to 27.06.2026. Before granting the lease, the Tahsildar conducted a survey and inspection and issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC). 3. The petitioner obtained all necessary statutory approvals, including approval of the mining plan, Consent for Establishment dated 05.05.2018, Consent for Operation valid up to 05.10.2025 from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and 2 NVJ W.P.No.31393 of 2025 Environmental Clearance. Accordingly, the petitioner has been carrying out mining operations in accordance with law. 4. Respondent No.3 had been regularly issuing dispatch permits for the mineral excavated from the leased area. The petitioner produced 30,140 CBM of mineral and uploaded the production details for obtaining e-permits up to 14.03.2024. However, Respondent No.3 did not approve the permits. The petitioner submitted representations dated 20.03.2025 and 12.06.2025 requesting issuance of dispatch permits, but no action was taken. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that, after paying the mineral revenue, which is due to the Government, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.06.2025 seeking issuance of dispatch permits. The petitioner also stated that he was not aware of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Lokayukta and that no adverse orders had been passed against him. 6. Respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that he was a party to the proceedings before the Hon’ble Lokayukta and that the 3 NVJ W.P.No.31393 of 2025 Lokayukta had called for a report from the District Collector. In response, Respondent No.3 submitted a report stating that the quarry lease granted to the petitioner had been determined by proceedings dated 22.09.2023 and that no quarry operations were being carried out in the leased area. Since the complaint before the Hon’ble Lokayukta was still pending and fresh remarks were sought by the Lokayukta, Respondent No.3 submitted another report to the District Collector on 29.07.2025 and requested dismissal of the writ petition. 7. During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have never alleged that the petitioner violated any condition of the mining lease or any provision of law. In the absence of any such violation, Respondent No.3 withheld the dispatch permits solely on the ground that a complaint was pending before the Hon’ble Lokayukta. According to the petitioner, this action is arbitrary and unjustified. 8. It was further submitted that, pursuant to the complaint, the authorities conducted an enquiry and submitted a detailed report to the Hon’ble Lokayukta. Even according to that report, the petitioner has been carrying on mining activities strictly in accordance with the 4 NVJ W.P.No.31393 of 2025 lease conditions, the approved mining plan, and the applicable legal requirements. Therefore, Respondent No.3 cannot refuse to issue dispatch permits merely because the proceedings before the Lokayukta are pending. Such refusal amounts to denying the right of mining of the petitioner and other benefits out of validly granted mining lease. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Mines submitted that, except for the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, no complaint, violation, or deviation has been found against the petitioner in relation to the mining lease. He requested the Court to pass appropriate orders. 10. The Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines. 11. Upon examining the record, it is seen that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease over Ac.1.00 hectare in Sy.Nos. 7/1A1, 1A2 and 1A6 of Puligallu Village, Peddathippasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District by proceedings dated 17.06.2006 for a period of 20 years. The mining plan was also duly approved. 5 NVJ W.P.No.31393 of 2025 12. The material on record further shows that, pursuant to the complaint before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry and submitted a detailed report to the District Collector on 29.07.2025. The report clearly states that the petitioner has been carrying on mining operations in accordance with the lease conditions and the approved mining plan. The report also records that no violations or deviations were found on the part of the petitioner. 13. It is true that the proceedings before the Hon’ble Lokayukta are still pending. However, once the authorities themselves have found that the petitioner has not committed any violation and has carried out mining activities in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be deprived of dispatch permits merely because the Lokayukta proceedings have not yet been concluded. 14. The contention of the petitioner is justified. Mere pendency of proceedings before a judicial or quasi-judicial forum cannot prevent the authorities from acting in accordance with law. Therefore, when the respondents themselves have concluded that the petitioner has complied with the lease conditions and the approved mining plan, 6 NVJ W.P.No.31393 of 2025 they cannot deny dispatch permits solely on the ground of pending proceedings before the Hon’ble Lokayukta. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive dispatch permits in terms of the mining lease agreement and the provisions of the applicable Act and Rules. Respondent No.3 is therefore directed to issue the necessary dispatch permits to the petitioner, in accordance with law and as per the terms of the lease agreement, without further delay. 16. In the result, writ petition is allowed. No costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 17.06.2026 SP